The residents of occupied Iraq are supposed to go through the charade of voting on Sunday. But even the top contenders for positions in the soon-to-be-organized National Assembly appear to be having their doubts about whether it makes sense to go forward with an election when most voters do not know who the candidates are or what they stand for.

Early this week, six of the most prominent Iraqi candidates squared off in the first-ever televised national debate.

On the surface, the debate seemed similar to the sort of political discourse that might be seen in any number of Western democracies. There was a frank exchange of ideas, even if the discussion seemed a tad stilted.

But there was one fundamental difference between the Iraqi debate and a political face-off in the United States, Britain or any of a number of other countries: This was not a multi-issue debate. Only one issue was discussed: whether the elections should be held.

Give the Iraqis credit. They are exploring the one real political question facing their country at this point. While the Bush administration refuses to recognize the absurdity of going ahead with an election in which Ambassador John Negroponte, the top U.S. official in Baghdad, says that neither U.S. nor Iraqi forces can guarantee voter safety, the Iraqis are confronting the reality of their circumstance.

Despite the fact that many Iraqis recognize the problem with holding national elections Sunday, the Bush administration is hellbent on going ahead, and will do so.

It raises the question: Who is in charge?

The answer, unfortunately, is all too obvious.

No one in Baghdad is calling the shots in Iraq's surreal experiment with electoral politics.

The marching orders are coming from Washington. And after all the tragedies that Iraq has so far experienced, this continued direction from a distance promises even more tragedy and farce in the days to come.

© 2005 Capital Times